New Doctrinal System

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[EIRRMod]

Edit: So basicly, the difference between level 1 vs level 9 is closed very very quickly, making it more fair

It also hasnt been implemented yet.

Im unsure of %'s, or even IF %'s will come into it.

I dont want people to be able to log in, create a new account (say level 9) and then grief the fuck out of someone with it just cos they can.

If I can find a way to get around that, then it should work out sweet.

[hans]

i guess that we have atm the problem that the comp builds are beeing always the same

especially the US comps are always the same

now i could see three ways to get out of such a boring comp builds:

1. saintpaulis idea: pricing buffs makes it possible not to focus all the time on free buffed units ( defensive offiver gives defensive and offensive buffs, so u use mostlikely the officer, 88 gets arty so u use 88), if u price such atm free buffs u can also meet certain different defensive builds

2.specialisation idea: make certain buffs more specialised like scotzmen said with the lightvehicle buff, so u can make it possible that the comp builds of the cretain doctrins arent not the same.

especially the us comps have exept pers or calli, rangers and howis; riflemen and atgs

that makes it boring to play US coz the build is exept few differences the same or just a limited base of different comp builds

3. make new weaknesses to doctrins, so if u use an axis defense doomfort that are in combination with blitz for allies especially US hard to beat, also coz the 88 gets arty and can kill the needed allied indirect fire units easily

[Mister Schmidt]

I preferred it when doctrines were themed, like with if you were up against a Defensive player, you knew he would be able to lock the map down and hold it. Defensive Doctrine should just be Defensive, not offensive and mobile as well. Each tree should just have different forms of that strat, Defensive could have an 88 tree, a support weapons tree and an infantry tree or something. That's what I would like anyway.

[Unkn0wn]

Isn't that what it has? Defensive doesn't really offer anything remotely 'offensive'.

[EIRRMod]

Isn't that what it has? Defensive doesn't really offer anything remotely 'offensive'.

*whistles in background*

Told you they should have been renamed ;p

[Groundfire]

Having the doctrine be biased towards a particular strat is a misnomer. You can literally be offensive with any type of build ever. It doesnt matter what you do with the trees in the "defensive" doctrine, I will literally always use it in an offensive manner.

The originial intent behind theming the trees offesnsive, defensive, and mobility was that you can buff particular statistics to make them function within the doctrine theme, but still keep the tree theme.

Ill give you an example.

Defensive T4 For the Fatherland, buffs HMG teams so they have an extra crew man, thus increasing survivability. A very "Defensive" type tree (because it buffs support weapons) for the Defensive Doctrine.

Terror T4 Heavy Support, buffs HMG teams so that their DPS is through the roof and the crew has MP44s. Thisi s a very "Terror themed" Defensive tree of that doctrine as outlined by the Doctrine outline.

Heavy Support, like "For the Fatherland" still functioned as the "Defensvie" Tree of that doctrine, but it's tailor made to it's doctrine to fit the "terror theme"

Anyways, this is always how I have intrepreted the Doctrien Outline. You can still make it all themed, you just gotta put it into a little context and name the thing right otherwise people dont see the linierality ofthe doctrine theme.

[Tymathee]

Been sayin that for a while smitty. Well it is defensive except the officer supervision makes it into a more offensive oriented doctrine. Fausts + officer = messed up tanks.

maybe change it so it only works when he's standing still.

I'd also like the docs to be more themed rather than the abilities within it.

Defensive is very defensive just as GF says.

[AmPM]

My thoughts on it, T1 and T2 should be fairly adaptable, T3 should become more specialized, T4 should be like focused like a fucking laser.

So dual T3 companies would gain advantage due to adaptability, and T4 companies would be highly specialized.

[BigDick]

Problem is, current companies dont really HAVE a weakness.

thats dependent of the point of view

imho the problem is that most companies don't really have strength

and thats because the T4s and T3s are continuously nerfed and weakened (beside not being specialized)

[Mister Schmidt]

But that is exactly the problem; all doctrines are good at everything. You may as well not pick a doctrine.
I know we're following this doctrine philosophy now, and we do need to finish it for once, but I'm not gonna lie, I don't agree with it.

It's not just Defensive, it's all of them.
Even vcoh had themes really, just not that accentuated.
The way I see it is, all 4 factions each have a doctrine that can be roughly matched with another doctrine from the other factions.

You take Wehrmacht, and you get Defensive, Blitzkreig, and Terror.

Defensive matches up with Infantry, RCA, and Luft/SE kinda overlap. Primarily, they are all supporting, defensive based doctrines.

Blitzkreig matches up with Airborne, Commandos, and Luft/SE. They are all fast, mobile, hit & run doctrines.

Terror matches up with Armour, Engineers, and Tank Destroyers. These 4 are all about heavy tanks and other powerful units.

But you can go even further. Let's take the supporting ones for example.

Defensive is about 88's, emplacements, and wtfshit offmaps.
Infantry is about hordes of Riflemen, Rangers and Howitzers, holding position behind tank traps & barbed wire.
RCA is about bombing the shit out of your opponent and following up with big infantry pushes.
Scorched Earth is about area denial and and traps, and Luft is about ambushing and strong defenses.

Then you get the more mobile ones.

Blitzkreig isn't really true to this as they get the Tiger which has never made sense to me, but they're about quick fast pushes through enemy lines.
Airborne is about Airborne obviously & light vehicles harassing the enemy.
Commandos is about dropping in behind enemy lines and sabotaging with quick assaults and demos.
SE doesn't really fit, and neither does Luft, but they can be altered to in this way.

And then the heavy ones.

Terror has the powerful KT fucking terrifying offmaps to just waste the enemy with.
Armour is about the Pershing and Calliope, pure armoured warfare with some LV's and infantry to back it up.
Engineers is about breaking through any enemy positions with huge tanks and then locking down the area.
Tank Destroyers is the Jagd, Hetzer, and just generally being able to kill the big stuff quickly.

I think 8th said it the other day, it's like the basic staple of most MMO's, you get the damage dealer, the damage soaker, and the damage healer/supporter.

That translates to AB/Commandos/Blitzkreig/SE being the damage dealers. They're like the Rogues&DPS of EIR.
Terror/Armour/Engineers/Tank Destroyers are the damage soakers. Quite aptly, they are the Warrior/Tank class.
Defensive/Luftwaffe/Artillary/Infantry are the support classes. Like your Mage/Cleric or whatever you want to call it.

But we don't follow that design.
I wish so badly that we did, but we don't.

Ideally, if I wanted to play Wehrmacht and my style was constant assault, I'd pick Blitz every time, but the drawback would be if I have to defend, I struggle a bit. As it is, I can easily pick Terror or Defensive and achieve the same result, and not get punished for it.

Basically, I'm just saying I would prefer themes. I know that won't happen, but I wish it did.

[Hicks58]

Tbh, a small part of me wishes that different doctrines got different resource amounts.

IE, Armour would get more fuel, while Infantry would get more manpower.

Not to a retarded degree, but still noticable levels, so if somebody is armour, you'll actually see a good deal of armour, but less infantry from them as a result. It'd mean less of the whole 5-6 mediums with 20+ Rifles/Grens and the such.

For example, Armour starts with 1500 Fuel as a base, but only has 6000 MP as it's base. Lots of armour that can be fielded, but you'd be kicked in the nuts for spamming Riflemen.

Obviously, not fixed numbers, but more thinking aloud for the moment.

[AmPM]

Tbh, a small part of me wishes that different doctrines got different resource amounts.

IE, Armour would get more fuel, while Infantry would get more manpower.

Not to a retarded degree, but still noticable levels, so if somebody is armour, you'll actually see a good deal of armour, but less infantry from them as a result. It'd mean less of the whole 5-6 mediums with 20+ Rifles/Grens and the such.

For example, Armour starts with 1500 Fuel as a base, but only has 6000 MP as it's base. Lots of armour that can be fielded, but you'd be kicked in the nuts for spamming Riflemen.

Obviously, not fixed numbers, but more thinking aloud for the moment.

This was suggested a long time ago. Apparently we still want all doctrines to be identical in what units they field and in what amounts.

I would love to play Blitz like a TANK COMPANY, but that probably will not happen.

[Hicks58]

Tbf, I'd love to run an Armoured company with 7-8 Shermans if it meant i'd only be having about 10 Riflemen squads in reserve at most.

Hell, we might even see companies with a Pershing, 2-3 Shermans, 2-3 M10's/M18's and a handful of Greyhounds/Quads. Limits on heavies mean that you'd only ever see the current amount of heavy armour, it's just mean more room to breathe.

If resource costs went up, pool costs would either have to go down or caps raise though tbh.

[AmPM]

I know right? Imagine being able to run Blitz with 2 Panthers, 3 P4's and a couple STuGs and a STuH. But only having a handful of heavily armed Stormtroopers as infantry and relying on teammates for artillery support.

[Hicks58]

I could get myself a double Pershing company with about 3-5 Hellcats for support with HVAP and truly go tank hunting... But be buggered if I'm gonna competently take on any reasonable amount of infantry.

Maybe I should make a suggestion post. Unlikely to do much, but hey, I've little better to do. :p

[AmPM]

Yea, doubtful lol.

I would love to actually have companies resemble a unit.

Armored company currently is just better tanks in an Infantry company...

[Hicks58]

Aye, anyhow, that thread is now up. I shall leave you people to resume the topic.

[Jstek]

Having negative buffs can also help too.  You can and advantage, but at a certain cost.

[Groundfire]

Having negative buffs can also help too.  You can and advantage, but at a certain cost.

We've tried this before. It's not popular.

Also, literally most of these suggestions pretaining to company diversity (different starting resources, etc.) are just an effect of only having one coder that can work on the launcher.

In the particular cast of different starting resources, the trend has already been set by allowing different companies to have different starting pool sizes. I'll bet you that Resources is on a list somewhere to be reworked, it just hasnt come to it yet. Warmap is more important and is the base of everything now to be built off of.